“Gillerman calls Carter ‘a bigot’.”
Well, he certainly got that right. The peanut farmer/Sunday school teacher is a disgrace to my state and our country. Can’t we just white-out his presidency and pretend it never happened?Oh, Miz Lillian, what have you foisted upon us?
Ynet reports:
Gillerman calls Carter ‘a bigot’- - - - - - - - -
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations called former President Jimmy Carter “a bigot” for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, “went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas,” Ambassador Dan Gillerman told reporters at a luncheon briefing Thursday.
The ambassador’s harsh words for Carter came days after the ex-president met with Mashaal for seven hours in Damascus to negotiate a cease-fire with Gaza’s Hamas rulers. Carter then called Mashaal on Monday to try to get him to agree to a one-month truce without conditions, but the Hamas leader rejected the idea.
The ambassador called last weekend’s encounter “a very sad episode in American history.”
Carter himself is one big sad episode in American history. The man who, as President, left hostages in Iran. The man who propagated a fear that the world was running out of oil and there would be none by 2000. His advice? Put on a sweater.
I swear, I want to buy that Carter a t-shirt inscribed: “I Love My Profit.”
And Miz Lillian, his momma? She was right: she should've stayed a virgin and saved us all a heap of sorrow.
— Paige
18 comments:
The only good thing about former President Peanutz was, he laid the groundwork for two terms of Ronald Reagan, and an historic example of the difference between bumbling incompetence and malaise, to accomplishment and optimism.
I don't think Ol'Peanutz has been the same since that Swamp Rabbit almost got him.
/wish it had
Having spent 2½ years of my life in Iran, a progressive nation let down so badly by Carter, I can only wish for a time machine to go back and get Ford instead.
Or anyone else with respect for how other nations need to be run, and a basic understanding that sometimes criminals need to stay in jail, not be released for 'humanitarian' reasons.
Operation Cyclonesure brought us some, ahem, interesting challenges, too.
So what actual evidence do you have to claim Jimmy Carter is a 'racist'? Given that Israelis and their partisans have played the anti-Semite card in the past (eg. the Jonathan Pollard case) I don't see why we should take the Israeli Ambassador's word for anything.
One can condemn and be disgusted by Hamas and JC's willingness to talk to them but I don't see why the PC epithet 'racist' should be used. Were the Israelis who killed Arabs and British soldiers (more than 300) in terrorist attacks in the 1940s racists and bigots? I wouldn't say that. They were fighting for the land they craved. Ditto Hamas. It's a conflict over territory between two different peoples. To label one side as racist is just a tactic of partisans of one side to gain the moral upper hand. Those of us not involved in the conflict shouldn't buy into it.
Averty Bullard is way off base.
That Carter receives millions from the Saudis while never speaking about it, but at the same time tries to pin on the "wealthy" Jewish lobby as being able to steer US foreign policy, as well as stifling debate about Israel in the US....is highly hypocritical.
Where Jewish terrorism is concerned, while being condemable, it grossly pales in comparison to the Arabs use of it. I also notice you lack of interest in bringing up Hajj Amin al-Husseini and what he did during the same time period when the Irgun was active.
The Mufti of Jerusalem was guilty of inciting the Arabs to violence at the expense of the more peaceful Nashashiri clan who wanted to live in peace with Jews. Al-Husseini was responsible for hundreds of Jews being murdered, and he NEVER notified those in areas to be bombed....as did the Irgun, giving time for people to vacate.
I't not a conflict over land, but of one side, the Arabs, not willing to live with Jews. It's about a religion, Islam, that deems itself to be superior to all else, that the "true believers" can't stomach the thought of a non-Islamic enity in the heart of the Islamic world, anymore than they can stomach Spain no longer belonging to the house of Islam.
Here's more on Jimmy
I always find this kind of thing disturbing. Carter is a bumbling, foolish old man whose foolishness has expanded to become advanced senility, and his politics are best described as "hare-brained Gandhiesque" (without Gandhi's pedophilic tendencies).
But to toss about the epithet of "racism" on the basis of this article alone is laughable. There is nothing in this single article to suggest "racism" in any form. Don't get me wrong...I despise Jimmy Carter and every bumbling attempt he has ever made to bend over for the enemies of the west, but how about a little beef? One does not absorb the entire belief system of somebody by shaking their hand, anymore than Carter absorbed totalitarian communism by shaking the hand of the North Korean leader - despite the enduring harm he did in that humiliating bend-over. Nor does one implicitely condone the actions of someone by shaking their hand...Roosevelt did not condone Stalin's purge by shaking his hand at Malta, nor did the American military condone Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbour by shaking hands with Japanese military personel during the surrender of Japan.
"Racism" is an epithet much overused these days...like "fascist," or "neo-con." It has become a meaningless accusation in the same vein as the 50's accusation of "square" or the 60's "uncool." It really means nothing more than the fact that the user disagrees with someone else and wishes to discredit him by tossing garbage.
There is a Jewish lobby in the US, every bit as powerful as the existence of Cair, if not quite so loud, arsonistic, and bombhappy. There is no sense in denying it, and doing so only opens the denier to ridicule. One might as well deny the existence of the Democrats in Congress, or the existence of Cair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby Nor is there anything implicitely or explicitely wrong with a Jewish lobby. So what?
I see a great deal of difference between Israel and Hamas, and I think trying to reason with unreason is as fruitless an endeavour as all of Mr. Carter's other endeavours, but let's be a little more careful in tossing out accusations on such flimsy evidence. If one wants to show how Carter is "racist," then cite examples of it...don't just tar by association.
Applause for KGS - very, very eloquently and accurately put. Thank you!
Avery, the word is "bigot," not "racist." Jews aren't a race. Jimmy Carter is a bigot and anti-Israel and there are loads of examples from his behavior at the Camp David accords, his venomous assault on Israel in his book calling Israel an "apartheid" state, and his preferential treatment of Muslims over Jews. This man was President of the United States and he writes a factually inaccurate book admonishing Israel without equal condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah. In fact, he believes Hamas is doing good work as he recently stated in an interview with Fox News reporter Reena Ninan.
Secondly, Avery brings up Jonathan Pollard. The information Jonathan Pollard stumbled upon were items that the USA (as an intelligence sharing ally of Israel's) was obligated to share with Israel, and that information is what led Israel to bomb the Osiris Nuclear facility in Iraq. I think the ends justifies the means. Look also at the Syrian reactor Israel just destroyed. Looks like Israel is the only country that seems to be actively keeping nukes out of the hands of Islamic bullies.
Personally, as a Zionist, I applaud what Pollard did and I believe he got a very raw deal from Israel. America was obligated to share that information and didn't. I think Jimmy Carter's actions are far more treasonous than Pollard's were. Pollard certainly didn't hurt America by sharing what he shared with Israel.
Finally, as far as the Irgun bombing the British military headquarters - they fought nobly and did what was right by notifying the British troops that they were about to explode a bomb. The British did not take them seriously and death was the result.
The difference is that Hamas doesn't target the military - they target civilians. It's one thing to have unintentional civilian deaths as a result of fighting. It's quite another to have intentional civilian deaths.
Carter is a bigot towards Jews because he casts the Jewish lobby as the "behind the scenes manipulator", while AIPAC is very up front in the open about its lobbying.
Carter on the other hand quietly receives millions in funds from the Saudis, and he expects people top believe him that he's an indpendent voice not influneced in any way.
Carter wants us to believe that Jewish money corrupts but Arab money doesn't. He's a bigot.
Inalienable Rights -
Thanks for that link. I was talking to somebody about Carters famous "Malaise" speech the other day who couldnt remember what it was about. I tried to explain but now I can show her.
Carter realizes that history has rendered a verdict on his failed presidency, and ever since he was turned out of office he has been trying to rehabilitate his image, much like Richard Nixon tried to do. But Tricky Dicky limited his patch-up work to writing books analyzing foreign affairs and offering sage advice. Well and good, that's why we keep our ex-Presidents on the payroll. But Jimmy fancies himself a sort of free-lance Secretary of State, and he never met a totalitarian strongman he didn't like. But no one is immortal. One anticipates the appearance of a certain Shakespeare quotation on the occasion of his funeral, "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it."
Inalienable Rights --
Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.
--------------------------
Inalienable Rights said...
Far be it from me to praise Dhimmi Carter, but I do owe him a debt of gratitude for converting me from a naive teenager to a conservative voter in under 4 short years.
Jimmy's infamous "malaise" speech (the word never occurs in it) is worth a re-read, as we approach the 29 year anniversary on July 15. Find it at
link
He actually hits many very good points, accurately predicted the future in terms of our current political paralysis, and reasonably laid out some solutions. Sadly, the Iran hostage debacle, combined with his own complete inability to inspire and lead, left this speech of history's dustheap.
However, there is a piece of profound blindness to the tides of history and ignorance of the truth that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. He states:
"I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.
I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure."
His blasé assumption that the unique and amazing political and civil structures we have built in these United States, based on freedom and individual rights, would endure forever, is dangerous. It is this mindset, deeply entrenched, which poses the greatest obstacle to fighting an existential threat like Islam. Most people simply cannot conceive of a future in which a free America does not exist, even as they deride us as evil, warn of "climate change," and parrot 9/11 conspiracy theories. This nation could end, just as surely as Byzantium and Rhodesia.
Any racism he has is just a trivial backdrop to the larger issue.
Avery --
I was using the word "racist" with bitter irony, as I always do. The word has become so corrupted that I could never use it with a straight face.
I need an emoticon that indicates irony, the way ";)" means I'm just kidding. Any suggestions?
Finally, as far as the Irgun bombing the British military headquarters - they fought nobly and did what was right by notifying the British troops that they were about to explode a bomb
Noble were they, I suggest you write and tell that too the widows of the British Army sergeants the Peace loving Irgun, kidnapped hung from orange trees not forgetting to booby trap the bodies which caused more casualties. I don't remember them phoning The King David Hotel either, perhaps they did, but who cares when you are killing people, it doesn't really matter if they are Yids Brits or other assorted wogs does it? The Irgun and the Stern Gang were terrorists of the worst kind and if they had not disbanded, or if I remember correctly been forcible integrated into the Haganah. Would have been destroyed.
The point d’ironie exists, but good luck finding a browser to render it.
Not only did they phone the King David Hotel, they also notified the Jerusalem Post.
The point, of course, was that they targeted a military installation. Not kids eating pizza, or commuters going to work, or people watching a band at a bar. Like it or not, the British military was a legitimate target. Apparently there was a problem with an aforementioned promise made by the British that required resolution. Had that occurred, I'm sure no British would've died as a result of renegging.
At least we can agree that the Irgun weren't engaging in a war of genocide. They weren't trying to destroy a democratic state and implement a fundamentalist theocracy in its place.
That alone makes them incomparably better than Hamas. Unlike the arabs who name themselves "palestinian", they were actual nationalists, fighting for the existence nation of Israel.
Oh dear, isn't that word verbotten now?
They were terrorists, too, and inexcusably so, but there was a limit to their goals that makes comparing them to the muzzies like comparing apples and grenades. Probably more comparable to the IRA or the Unionists.
Avery Bullard said...
‘... So what actual evidence do you have to claim Jimmy Carter is a 'racist'? Given that Israelis and their partisans have played the anti-Semite card in the past (eg. the Jonathan Pollard case) I don't see why we should take the Israeli Ambassador's word for anything. ...’
4/27/2008 11:28 AM
ScottSA said...
‘... But to toss about the epithet of "racism" on the basis of this article alone is laughable. There is nothing in this single article to suggest "racism" in any form. Don't get me wrong...I despise Jimmy Carter and every bumbling attempt he has ever made to bend over for the enemies of the west, but how about a little beef? ...’
4/27/2008 1:08 PM
The only two references to Carter being a racists was in the posts you two made.
‘The beef’ that ScottSA requests is in all the commentary spoken and written by Carter. Just read any of his speeches or read any of his books. Maybe even try watching/listening to the news.
Those with whom Carter prefers to associate in the Middle East are very enthusiastic and eager to use the terms Islamophobic, racists, bigot against any and all that say anything less than fully positive about Islam or Muslims. Even daring to ask a question is offensive to them. There may indeed be a certain phobia responsible for Carter’s perception of the Middle East. Is there a technical term for a phobia against common sense?
The Irgun, Lechi, and Haganah were fighting to liberate our land from foreign occupiers, it is justified to use whatever force necessary to protect one's home from those who would steal it.
While the Irgun under Begin did warn the British of attacks, under David Raziel zt'l, himself a deeply religious Jew, the Etzel fought according to the Jewish laws of warfare, as the Lechi never ceased to do.
Lets not pretend having the mercy of fools is something to be proud of. In truth if Yair Stern's leadership had been accepted by the nation we would have been rid of the British far faster and we wouldnt have the Arab's occupying so much of our land today.
Post a Comment